Bay County Drain Commissioner Joseph L. Rivet is being questioned by police for allegedly steering drain work to a list of preferred contractors without advertising for bids.

Rivet confirmed that his office, located inside the County Building, was visited by a state police detective last Tuesday, based on a tip from Nelson H. Niederer, Rivet's Republican opponent in the Nov. 4 election.

Rivet said he was asked several questions about allegations made by Niederer. He said he turned over several files from his office and submitted a letter to the detective.

"We may be investigating, but whether or not it has any merit, we're not able to discuss it," said Lt. John Card, commander of the Bay City State Police Post.

Rivet acknowledges some drain projects over the last few years - contracts worth tens of thousands of dollars - were not advertised as mandated by law, but he blames it on clerical error, not criminal intent.

"It is our policy to advertise for sealed bids in the Bay City Democrat at a date, time and location specified," Rivet wrote to Detective Sgt. Andrew Longuski on Wednesday.

"We have found it far more effective, however, to notify qualified contractors directly of pending projects, to assure they are aware of them and submit bids."

Rivet said he personally contacts good contractors he knows of because most don't read the Bay City Democrat, but he said that's no excuse for not advertising.

"It does appear a clerical oversight has led to a lack of publication in the Bay City Democrat," he wrote to the detective. "Our office policy will be more closely monitored to (ensure) this oversight does not happen in the future."

Rivet, a Democrat from Bangor Township, is a former state representative who was elected drain commissioner in 2004.

Niederer, his opponent, went to Sheriff John E. Miller last Monday with a stack of records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The records show Rivet has solicited bids from a handful of contractors, while other companies weren't approached.

Miller said he reviewed the records and referred the matter to state police. Niederer believes Rivet knowingly violated the law and he's willing to take the case to the attorney general.

"It's always the same two companies, same three companies. He's calling them up and saying, 'Hey, give me a price,'" Niederer said. "It's just another example of the good old boy network in Bay County."

The Michigan Drain Code lays out the process for bidding out drain work. It states that a drain commissioner must "advertise for sealed proposals" for all drain work "having an estimated cost exceeding $5,000." The code requires projects be advertised "in a newspaper of general circulation in the county."

"That's how public money is supposed to be handled and Mr. Rivet knows this," Niederer said, pointing out that Rivet is the second vice president of the Michigan Association of County Drain Commissioners.

Rivet said he can say without hesitation that the methods he uses are ensuring county taxpayers the best value.

"We understand the marketplace. We know who does the best work," he said. "We pit contractors against each other to get the best possible price."

In a June 27, 2007, letter to Portsmouth Township, Rivet wrote about a project to clean the Douglas Drain.

"We asked three contractors to give us prices," Rivet wrote, adding that he received a price from one for just under $20,000. The next day, an agreement was signed with Zervan Brothers Excavating of Burt. Niederer claims the work wasn't advertised, a claim Rivet doesn't dispute.

In a letter dated Nov. 27, 2006, Rivet wrote about a maintenance project on the Fitzhugh Intercounty Drain, located in Merritt and Buena Vista townships. Niederer claims the work wasn't advertised, a claim Rivet doesn't dispute.

"We have solicited two bids," Rivet wrote. "Monchilov Excavating has provided a bid of $33,153. Zervan Brothers Excavating has provided a lower bid of $31,583."

The scope of the Fitzhugh project later was reduced and new bids were solicited from the same two companies, with Monchilov getting the contract for about $26,000 in March 2007.

Rivet said on occasion he limits the number of contractors he contacts because he knows who can do the job. The Fitzhugh Drain, for instance, requires a piece of equipment that "almost no contractors have" and "there's only a couple companies that can do the work."

Niederer thinks Rivet, in some cases, steered work to specific contractors by making sure the prices were kept under $5,000. In June 2007, Rivet's office paid JB Excavating $4,999 for work on the Ziegler Drain in Frankenlust Township, $1 short of having to go out for competitive bids.

On June 14, 2007, Rivet's office paid Rich Putt & Sons Excavating $4,100 for work on the Witbrodt Drain in Williams Township. A day later, the Auburn contractor was paid another $1,300 for more work on the same drain. Rich Putt also is an employee of the Road Commission.

Rivet denies Niederer's allegation that he purposely split up the $5,400 cost of the work so he could steer the contract to Putt. Rivet said that may have been one of those times when work was being done on part of a drain and "the farmer next door" wanted work done, too.

In July 2007, Rivet's office entered into another agreement with Putt for $23,853 worth of work on the Keck Drain in Garfield Township. Bids were solicited from Monchilov, Zervan and Putt, but the work was never advertised.

"I think he is right," Rivet said of Niederer's claims. "I will be the first to admit that we had some clerical errors. There's nothing criminal. We had a clerical oversight."